The Fossil Record
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
aharvey said:
I wouldn't expect all atheists to necessarily be ignorant about Christianity, I 'd expect them to be hostile toward it. And, yes, I understand that not all atheist are. If some doesn't understand Christianity, no the best place to find out about it wouldn't be an atheist, anti-Christian site. I know what evolution is, the belief that we evolved from slime or whatever. If I went to a pro-evolution site, do you think it would change my mind about believing in God because it wouldn't. And, yes, I'm aware some Christians believe in evolution. This one doesn't. Do you think that every pro creation by God site are ignorant of what evolution teaches?
Koban complained that I never replied to "Harv's" post#70 so it is Saturday and I have nothing better to do so here goes (Koban should understand that I am understandably slower than you youngsters in typing plus I get so many people arguing with me plus I don't spend ALL my time here, with the result that I tend to be more selective than many in my replies).
I never consciously engage in ad hominen attacks. On the contrary I tend to be respectful toward individuals, regardless of their beliefs. However, I am not respectful toward the theory sometimes called NeoDarwinism nor the group who adhere to this grevious scientific error. "Group think" disgusts me.
I feel it unproductive to spend time and effort proving that you personally bear full responsibility for telling people that they are ignorant in not believing in evolution. But it is obvious to anyone with eyes to see that evolutionists typically do this frequently instead of keeping the discussion strictly on the evidences.
Without taking the time to review exactly what was being referred to here (I presume it was the fossil record though), I will only say that declaring the opponents argument is false is no better than me saying that my opinion is true.
My "alternative theory" I presume is referring to my general belief that the Genesis account is true as written, with no "symbolic" interpretation necessary. I not not agree with the many who try to make it agree with so-called "scientific" theories of Origins for the simple reason that I believe those theories are incorrect, on scientific grounds.
If one wants to call belief in a 6-day creation of multiple complex types at the beginning of life (some thousands rather than millions or billions ago), followed by a global flood several thousand years later that lasted over a year, a "theory" be my guest, but it might be better to call it a revelation orchestrated by God so that humans would have a solid set of starting conditions for our further speculations about the physical world and how it got to be the way it is today.
I favor the straightforward understanding of this revelation because I believe it makes far more sense in explaining how lifeforms have diversified over time than does the idea of all lifeforms today being the result of a bacterial-type starting lifeform that took billions of years to diversity through random accidents altering the DNA.
... snip
I do not recall calling you a liar, because I always have been of the opinion that you actually believe what you are saying. However, I do not see any logical basis for believing the extrapolation is scientifically valid and I have not seen any support for it other than "why not?" or perhaps attempts to involve subjective judgments regarding the fossil record or perhaps other types of indirect assessments.
In order for the process to work it must increase the specified complexity of the genomes involved over time. There is no solid evidence that this is possible using a random search strategy which NeoDarwinism advocates. In fact this was the primary reason I rejected NeoDarwinism 22 years ago. There have been attempts to overcome this difficulty many times over the past 22 years, but all such attempts and examples I have seen have in the end proven to be scientifically inadequate.
Your comment in quotes is not an accurate statement of my belief. It may be close, but no cigar. Specifically, the logic may have a superficial appeal (I bought into it for many years), but on closer examination the end result is clearly wrong. To be perfectly clear, I do not believe that the evolutionary model is correct.
There are limiting factors in all physical phenomena.Your position seems to be that it is scientifically proven that small changes will accumulate to large changes given sufficient time. I do not accept that all you need to do to support this is to note that I can't prove it to be wrong.
Almost everybody and everything appears on the internet, including writings by professionals and many journal articles. On a personal note I read hundreds of books about evolution, written by professionals, and have many of the same books in my personal library.
Some aspects of evolutionary theory are better supported than others, but this tends to change over time as research and evidence accumulates. The one thing that originally convinced me 22 years ago that NeoDarwinism was wrong was the concept that random mutations was the principal mechanism driving a transformation from a hypothetical protocell to all lifeforms found today and in the fossil record.
I have never wavered in my belief that the "random mutation" idea was wrong, in fact it is stronger today than ever and continues to grow as new research and findings continue to come out in a literal flood of information.
NeoDarwinism is for all intents and purposes dead, despite the feverish efforts of its shrinking roster of proponents to revive the corpse.
aharvey said:
I never consciously engage in ad hominen attacks. On the contrary I tend to be respectful toward individuals, regardless of their beliefs. However, I am not respectful toward the theory sometimes called NeoDarwinism nor the group who adhere to this grevious scientific error. "Group think" disgusts me.
I feel it unproductive to spend time and effort proving that you personally bear full responsibility for telling people that they are ignorant in not believing in evolution. But it is obvious to anyone with eyes to see that evolutionists typically do this frequently instead of keeping the discussion strictly on the evidences.
Without taking the time to review exactly what was being referred to here (I presume it was the fossil record though), I will only say that declaring the opponents argument is false is no better than me saying that my opinion is true.
My "alternative theory" I presume is referring to my general belief that the Genesis account is true as written, with no "symbolic" interpretation necessary. I not not agree with the many who try to make it agree with so-called "scientific" theories of Origins for the simple reason that I believe those theories are incorrect, on scientific grounds.
If one wants to call belief in a 6-day creation of multiple complex types at the beginning of life (some thousands rather than millions or billions ago), followed by a global flood several thousand years later that lasted over a year, a "theory" be my guest, but it might be better to call it a revelation orchestrated by God so that humans would have a solid set of starting conditions for our further speculations about the physical world and how it got to be the way it is today.
I favor the straightforward understanding of this revelation because I believe it makes far more sense in explaining how lifeforms have diversified over time than does the idea of all lifeforms today being the result of a bacterial-type starting lifeform that took billions of years to diversity through random accidents altering the DNA.
... snip
I do not recall calling you a liar, because I always have been of the opinion that you actually believe what you are saying. However, I do not see any logical basis for believing the extrapolation is scientifically valid and I have not seen any support for it other than "why not?" or perhaps attempts to involve subjective judgments regarding the fossil record or perhaps other types of indirect assessments.
.
In order for the process to work it must increase the specified complexity of the genomes involved over time. There is no solid evidence that this is possible using a random search strategy which NeoDarwinism advocates. In fact this was the primary reason I rejected NeoDarwinism 22 years ago. There have been attempts to overcome this difficulty many times over the past 22 years, but all such attempts and examples I have seen have in the end proven to be scientifically inadequate.
Your comment in quotes is not an accurate statement of my belief. It may be close, but no cigar. Specifically, the logic may have a superficial appeal (I bought into it for many years), but on closer examination the end result is clearly wrong. To be perfectly clear, I do not believe that the evolutionary model is correct.
There are limiting factors in all physical phenomena.Your position seems to be that it is scientifically proven that small changes will accumulate to large changes given sufficient time. I do not accept that all you need to do to support this is to note that I can't prove it to be wrong.
Almost everybody and everything appears on the internet, including writings by professionals and many journal articles. On a personal note I read hundreds of books about evolution, written by professionals, and have many of the same books in my personal library.
Some aspects of evolutionary theory are better supported than others, but this tends to change over time as research and evidence accumulates. The one thing that originally convinced me 22 years ago that NeoDarwinism was wrong was the concept that random mutations was the principal mechanism driving a transformation from a hypothetical protocell to all lifeforms found today and in the fossil record.
I have never wavered in my belief that the "random mutation" idea was wrong, in fact it is stronger today than ever and continues to grow as new research and findings continue to come out in a literal flood of information.
NeoDarwinism is for all intents and purposes dead, despite the feverish efforts of its shrinking roster of proponents to revive the corpse.
Last edited:
aharvey
New member
Thank you. Is it so hard to accept that the same is true about, well, pretty much everything, including evolution?Lynn73 said:
Just so's ya know, the second half of this sentence disproves the first half.Lynn73 said:
"Pro-evolution" site? I don't doubt that these exist, but how about just going to sources about science? You've kinda skipped over it when I've mentioned this, but evolution is not a religion, a political party, or a team. You might as well refer to "pro-gravity" sites. "Pro-evolution" sites would exist simply to respond to attacks by anti-evolutionists, and you'd be better off just going to sources that just discuss the science itself.Lynn73 said:
So to answer your question, no, I don't think a visit to a "pro-evolution" site would change your mind, but I can't predict how you would react to exposure to the science itself.
I haven't seen one yet that demonstrates otherwise. If they know what evolutionary theory is about (note that evolution doesn't actually teach anything!), they are withholding that information from their site.Lynn73 said:
aharvey
New member
Then you must do much of your typing whilst unconscious. Or maybe you have a unique concept of ad hominem Maybe you don’t consider accusing someone of typically “shooting the messenger” to be an ad hominem attack, but whatever you consider it, my point was that you aren’t likely to back it up.bob b said:
I am not so sure that you would accept someone coming to you and saying, “I respect you as an individual, but that group called Christians to which you belong are sure a bunch of idiots!”bob b said:
Frankly, I find that statement hilarious coming from a fundamentalist Christian.bob b said:
So you do find it productive to spend time and effort making accusations, but you don’t find it productive to spend time and effort backing them up?bob b said:
Then your eyes need checking, bob, because I have spent a great deal of time trying to discuss the evidence and you and pretty much everyone else on the Biblical literalist side of the fence do everything in your power to avoid discussing the evidence.bob b said:
How much time would it have taken to read the one-sentence quote, from you, placed right there in my post? Since it didn't involve the fossil record, it almost seems like you're trying to avoid the actual issue.bob b said:
That’s usually true. In this case, I couldn’t really imagine what possessed you to claim that scientific theories are sunk by exceptions regardless of how few they are. Can you give me a single example of science operating this way? Oh, and if you’re going to keep it relevant to the present discussion, make sure your example isn’t an exception that is better explained by a competing theory.bob b said:
Any other branch of science that you think should similarly rely on this kind of nonscientific revelation? Do you really feel that your belief that it “makes far more sense” to you is sufficient cause for the rest of us to fundamentally change how we do science? Even though you cannot explain why or how or provide any supporting logic or evidence (remember, “it’s obvious” doesn’t count as either in science)?bob b said:
Too bad. I wonder why you skipped that section?bob b said:
Re-read your post 62. I will tell you that it is a pale dodge to start by talking about me personally and then, just before starting with the ad hominem attacks, switch to “evolutionists” while still continuing to respond to my arguments. So while you are talking about me you say evolutionists teach lies, you are calling me a liar.bob b said:
You’ve avoided this point before, but what the heck, I’ll mention it again. Extrapolations are deemed unjustified not by default alone. There is usually some sort of reason, logic, evidence, whatever, that suggests caution. Furthermore, we are not talking about a quantitative extrapolation here, in which the rates of evolution would be assumed constant over time. We are talking about a qualitative extrapolation, in which the process doesn’t just completely stop for no reason. That’s what you’re claiming: the process itself will stop working after a certain amount of time for no reason. Can you name another case in science where such a philosophy is accepted?bob b said:
Funny, that’s not part of the theory at all. Nor has anyone demonstrated in the slightest that for populations to change genetically over time, the specified complexity (a term, I might add, that is devoid of biological content) of the genomes must increase.bob b said:
As you well know, NeoDarwinism (what a quaint term!) does not “advocate” a “random search strategy.” And it’s hard to imagine why there would be hard evidence for something that is considered important only to people who have other, nonscientific reasons for tearing evolutionary theory down.bob b said:
Ah, I’m sure that was. Genomic specified complexity changes was a hot topic in the early 1980s, wasn’t it? Seriously, you really expect us to believe that you rejected all of evolutionary theory because there was “no solid evidence” that “random search strategies” could “increase the specified complexity of the genome”?bob b said:
That’s because they’ve been done by creationists/intelligent designers, and weren’t really trying to overcome the difficulty, they were trying to show there was a difficulty. This is a topic whose adherents have yet to make enough of a prima facie case for real biologists to care about it.bob b said:
So, no descent with modification? No small changes over short time intervals? More generally, no relationship between time and change? I've told you that's the model, and you agreed with me. You can dispute one of the inferences, but it would help for you to provide at the least a logical basis for your disagreement.bob b said:
I’m not asking you to prove it wrong. I’m asking you to provide a rational hypothesis. You betray yourself when you use the phrase “scientifically proven.” Anyone who truly understands science knows that science does not and cannot deal in proofs.bob b said:
It has been established that small differences occur over short time spans, and larger differences have accumulated over longer time spans. These are observations, scientific facts. Given evolutionary theory, we can make inferences about what would happen over ever longer periods of time, and we can make predictions about what the world would be like as a result. These predictions cover embryology, genetics, ecology, morphology, behavior, biochemistry, geology, biogeography, and probably more. And they are very, very well supported. You no doubt will continue to make unsupported claims to the contrary, but all I can do is remind you what happens whenever I actually get you to discuss specific evidence.
A little bait and switch, bob? Or do you really think this responds to my statement above? Let’s try it out: “Anyone who believes what they read on the internet by professionals in the field over what professionals in the field publish...” Nope, sorry, the fact that professionals put stuff on the web does not address my point at all.bob b said:
And yet you still think Mitochondrial Eve refers to the original human female, that Haldane was puzzled about evolutionary rates, that tides primarily move water laterally, that people used cytochrome C data to construct phylogenies, that creationism but not evolutionary theory predicts that the age of the oldest fossils known can only increase as new fossils are found, that the simplist marine creatures are found on the bottom of the ocean… (yes, links are available upon request).bob b said:
Yep, the overall level of support increases.bob b said:
That’s not exactly what you said above convinced you.bob b said:
And it’s wrong, random mutation is not the principal mechanism driving anything, much less the evolution of all life. Mutations do little (nothing?) more than provide a little variation in a population.
As you’ve described it, I’d agree that it’s wrong, but so would the rest of the scientific community.bob b said:
You might want to add the following to your monumental reading list:bob b said:
Shermer, M. 2002. Why people believe weird things.
•••Chapter 3: How thinking goes wrong.
••••••Section 6. Bold statements do not make claims true
aharvey said:
I found little relevant material regarding the main points of the discussion in your voluminous posting, but will admit that your last suggestion that I go to Shermer as a reference was quite a hoot. He was disposed of nicely by Enyart in their debate on evolution. And the Section 6 statement is equally amusing because that is precisely the problem with the idea that small changes can lead to large ones given sufficient time.
Incidentally, random mutation is the principle mechanism proposed to drive evolution. It is a matter of history. Mendelian genetics was orginally seen as a barrier to unlimited evolution. It was only when the element of random mutation was introduced that people believed that they had found a way around Mendel's findings. Combining genetic material was not going to create things not already latent in their genetic material, but mutations might, or so they thought. When genes were discovered this initially seemed to help the "cause", until the additional complication arose that multiple genes were necessary to generate a function, and the still later additional complication that multiple functions could be affected by a change in a single gene.
In other words, functions and traits were systems, elaborately woven together in marvellous ways well beyond the capabilies of human designers.
22 years ago I started to read about DNA, etc. and with my background in human engineered systems was able to readily recognize that knowledge gained about those systems would be applicable to biological systems. Biological systems were automatic feedback control systems, albeit far more elaborate and sophisticated than the human designed ones of that earlier time period. No subsequent findings have changed this; they have only made it more obvious to more people.
These findings are what destroy the hope that one can use random changes to generate what we see in nature given a starting point of a hypothetical primitive protocell. It does not mean that some sort of additional variation cannot be produced (beyond what sexual recombination would do), but such variation would be of the downhill variety, not the kind that would place one on a path to more and more elaborate and sophisticated systems and structures, because there is no such gradual pathway. There are only isolated "landing pads" of successful designs, far removed from one another. Only ingenuity could cause a "leapfrog" from one workable design to a different workable design.
Some today would call this the problem of generating "specified complexity" through random trials.
At the time of my rejection of the "random mutation" idea some 22 years ago I suppose I would have simply referred to it as the problem of "making chicken salad out of chicken s___t."
Thus, I began to gradually favor what I now propose is the better idea that if multiple successful designs were available at the beginning, then the small and limited amount of variation that would be caused by sexual recombination would be able to quickly generate all the variety we see in nature, not completely excluding a small amount of additional minor variation due to random mutations.
Last edited:
noguru
Well-known member
bob b said:
Yes Bob, and they now have an apparatus that can make a metal sphere levitate between two electromagnetic poles. Years ago we would have thought that to be well beyond the capabilities of human designers. And some probably would have assumed such a thing to be possible only through the "supenatural". Now that we understand it comprehensively enough to create this device, we know that nothing supernatural is involved at all.
bob b said:
I havent read the rest of your post bob b but your comment about Pastor Enyart "disposing" of Shermer is simply factually incorrect. To the extent that Enayrt "won" that "debate" it was only because it was Enyart's show and he controlled the discussion. Anyone listening with an objective ear would find that show just dumb.
noguru
Well-known member
bob b said:Unless you believe that humans were supernaturally created in the first place.
Yes Bob, that is an a priori assumption. So far there is no empirical evidence to support this. And then you use this assumption to support your conclusion that it must have been supernatural, because we do not know how it naturally occured. :think:
aharvey
New member
Now that's a classic ad hominem. You don't need to consider Shermer's point that bold statements do not make claims true because (you think) Shermer lost a debate to Bob Enyart.bob b said:
And here's another ploy: you avoid its relevance to your statement by claiming (without justification) that it applies to a completely different statement, one that I have at least provided the logical basis for.bob b said:
Gee, as a professional biologist I have to say that this directly contradicts my understanding of the relevant history. Mendelian genetics solved the biggest problem Darwin had with his ideas, namely how traits got passed on without constant blending.bob b said:
Sorry, none of this has anything to do with your foolish claim that random mutation is the primary mechanism of evolution, which is equivalent to claiming that volcanoes are the primary mechanism of soil formation.bob b said:
Yawn. Funny that you've made this same claim how many dozens of times, but have not articulated or elaborated beyond these simplistic boilerplate claims (advertisements?).bob b said:
Sorry. bob, I momentarily forgot how little you know or understand about biology, or science, or proper arguementation (i.e, logic and evidence), and how little you care to understand biology, or science, or proper arguementation, as evidenced by how readily you repeat the exact same nonsense regardless of how much information is provided you, how incredibly selective you are in choosing what to respond to, how frequently those "responses" are in fact evasions, and how readily you dismiss actual evidence and logic as voluminous verbiage. No doubt in a few months you'll be spouting the same nonsense about Mitochondrial Eve with the same unshakable confidence as you did last week. Virtually all of your claims seem to be presuppositions! There's really no point in trying to discuss them, an elementary point that I seem to need to relearn every few months...bob b said:
FYI -anyone:
On top of the hills near us that extend for miles and miles and are forested, which are owned by Weyerhouser and the State of Washington and other private companies, there are exposed layers of not quite fossilized into hard rock sea creatures by the millions -I haven't counted them, but they are so thick where exposed that there is never an inch between one to another.
the hills extend for quite a few miles -I'd have to look up the square miles to say how many; but one can drive more than fifty miles through them in some places to get to the next town.
Evidences of the flood are all over this earth -so what do the so called experts who deny the flood know, but the folly of denial?
On top of the hills near us that extend for miles and miles and are forested, which are owned by Weyerhouser and the State of Washington and other private companies, there are exposed layers of not quite fossilized into hard rock sea creatures by the millions -I haven't counted them, but they are so thick where exposed that there is never an inch between one to another.
the hills extend for quite a few miles -I'd have to look up the square miles to say how many; but one can drive more than fifty miles through them in some places to get to the next town.
Evidences of the flood are all over this earth -so what do the so called experts who deny the flood know, but the folly of denial?
thelaqachisnext said:
Exactly. The evidence of the global flood is everywhere. Fossils of things are found in places that would not have been their normal habitat. The fountains of the deep broke up, it rained, you have water and mud swirling and flowing everywhere laying down these layers as the water settled and ebbed. It is the folly of denial, I agree wholeheartedly.
http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm
The earth's magnetic fields -and the universe's- were harnessed from the beginning, as artifacts that are evidences of that fact prove, that are found all over the earth; Suppression of the facts of earth's true history leave modern government schooled persons in the dark ages as to our history, and those artifacts support the Word of God from the beginning to the end.noguru said: